It is more accurate to state that there is a Global War of Terror. And it is aimed at us.

Posted by: jay at April 28, 2007 7:26 AM

Of course, the one thing they all left out is that the blame for the attacks will be placed directly upon conservatives and Christians.

Posted by: Gary at April 28, 2007 7:43 AM

"It is more accurate to state that there is a Global War of Terror. And it is aimed at us."

Jay,

True, but I'd rather see something even more accurate and truthful like "Global Islamic War of Terror."

It's time we stop avoiding the "I" word. It all springs from Islamic theology, and is committed in the name of Islam. And the terrorists are all Muslims.

If Muslims can't take the truth, too bad. That doesn't mean we have to be dishonest also.

So long as we continue repeating the same old mantra that "islam is a peaceful religion that's been hyjacked by extremists," we're lying through our teeth, and giving that religion a respectability it doesn't deserve.

Posted by: rational at April 28, 2007 8:05 AM

It should be called the Global War of Islamic Terrorism.

It's the PC politicians and Media that somehow can't say the words "Islamic" or "Muslim." Not anyone on Jihad Watch!

Posted by: darcy at April 28, 2007 8:29 AM

For about five years now I have been referring to this as THE WAR FOR CIVILIZATION.

It is no less than just that.

While there are innumerable hot fronts in this war there are only two coequal theaters--and they are idealogical.

Either of these prevent mankind from moving forward.

Both demand that the entire world submit to their ultimate authority.

If our civilization is based on inalienable individual freedom and the opportunity to improve one's life then my name for this works as well as any.

Socialism and islamism. Neither works unless everybody gets on the train. Our enemies know this for a fact--there can be no hold-outs for freedom--and they're doing their best to keep us from believing this.

Posted by: turn at April 28, 2007 8:37 AM

"a war on a tactic rather than on an opponent"

Wow that little statement there about sums it all up
what the problem is. Politically correct bacteria has infected even the thought of military response to the point where "terrorism" has become disconnected with the ideology that is fostering it.

Except the donkey candidates are planning "peace roads" to the source of terrorism.

In a recent discussion with some Islamic supporter who muttered common "I can understand why people use terrorism" [with obviously alluding to Israel & the U.S. are bringing it on themselves]...instead of talking about the cure, I mockingly sneezed the virus right back on them by replying "I also understand why Israel & the U.S. only negotiates with military action in response to why people use terrorism"...

I think it was the first time I made someone like that think outside their liberal shaped box :)

Posted by: SoteriA at April 28, 2007 8:55 AM

Interesting article the WND posted on the Jihadist's response to the debate...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55424

Posted by: SoteriA at April 28, 2007 9:06 AM

Next insane Western fantasy constructions overdue for the garbage can: "moderate muslim," "radical muslim," "moderate islam," "radical islam."

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at April 28, 2007 10:43 AM

Follow-up question for the candidates:

"Do you believe that there is a 'Global War of Islamofascism Against the Rest of the World'? As demonstrated by the attacks in Spain, London, Bali, Beslan, Thailand, the Phillipines, the U.S., The Netherlands, et cetera?"

One hand?

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 28, 2007 11:14 AM

caveat

A global war on terror and a global proxy war on America by the communists of Russia and China along with their Islamocommunists of Iran, Syria and Zawairi in league with the European banking fascists and bin Ladens Islamofascists.

Too much information for Americans or Democrats to deal with. It is just easier to blame Bush.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 28, 2007 12:39 PM

Just had a life-affirming moment. Came downstairs to check the news and, mid-way through this article there was a rhythmic tap-tap-tap on the back window. I figured it was either my wife or an animal and I kept reading. But there was another tap-tap-tap.

It was my neighbor who I hadn’t met yet. I moved in from about 3000 miles away and he moved in from nearby about a year ago. We had had a windstorm a week ago and there were some large branches lying in my backyard. Home Depot wants $42 to rent a chain saw and I have been dragging my feet. He came to volunteer his. We spent half an hour working together cutting the branches into firewood and dragging the smaller branches to the street. He apologized for having a parts car in his backyard, I apologized for leaving the branches for a week. We’re going to get together for a beer this summer.

One more small datapoint as to why we won’t be the ones who are served up steaming on a bed of rice.

Posted by: pez at April 28, 2007 1:53 PM

APPEASMENT = CERTAIN DEATH

Posted by: champ at April 28, 2007 2:18 PM

I can't believe this is even asked, save rhetorically.
This has got georgie "the capo" sore@$$ payola money written all over it...after all, he owns the party anyway.

Posted by: jcom972 at April 28, 2007 3:39 PM

from the democrat clowns above, you have the answer of why you never should vote for a democrat again!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 28, 2007 4:54 PM

Hmmm, well, I wouldn't nail all democracts...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454213.136805556.html

One main reason the mainstream lackeys of georgie "the capo" sore@$$ were sent by him to purge Joe (and failed miserably when well-deservedly exposed for the lunatic leftists they were, and are)was this precise reason (and remember 1/3 of the dems are "blue dogs" who don't share, to the same degree, views of the kook-fringe lunatic leftist camp that happens to own the democratic party).
It's also the reason there's a huge civil war with 3 different camps within going after each other like rabid dogs.
But that's another forum completely.

Posted by: jcom972 at April 28, 2007 7:34 PM

Four of the eight current Democratic candidates, eliminated by default for willfully denying an obvious reality, with their resonse to the question posed.

That's a good start.

Posted by: awake at April 28, 2007 7:48 PM

Although it's a sidetrack issue vs the main topic, that's nothing...
In their obsession to outscream the others in how much THEY (respectively) are against the war (almost to the point of 3rd graders saying "I am more that you are! Nyah!!!!"), they obviously forget to realize the effects of their words & actions upon a quietly stunned populace.

Over half the country hates hitlery & doesn't like her nasty disposition (yes, it's REALLY nasty, I saw it myself)...
...and that chicago charlatan is even more left than SHE is stands zero chance, since Americans have proven to abhor hard-leftism & their resultant vitriols of hatred that is a total turnoff for the masses.

The rest, especially algore, lack a chance...but ya never know-hell COULD freeze over tomrrow...but that would only hurt his socialist scheme in the end. lol

The only one capable of winning the White House is the same guy they themselves tried to purge from the party: Joe Liebermann...and that won't happen now that they showed their true colors & failed attempt at "night of the long knives".

Let them self-destruct...they're doing just that, entirely on their own. That's why I'm not concerned with it.

Posted by: jcom972 at April 28, 2007 8:32 PM

I beg to differ with you.
There are only three nations engaged in your global war on terrorism.
They rest of the nations of the world could care less what happens outside their own country*; but might respond if they believe the imminent threat is targeting them.
That the bad guys are practicing trans-national terrorism is nothing new.
As for blame, only you anal retentive types care abour blame; the rest of us think we should only fight where we can win.
You are on the horns of a dilemna. Stay, loose later** or leave, and let the demoncrats have a victory. Poor baby, I feel for you.

*Exception: When the ruling portion of another nation can use the fact of the war to our detriment.

** Much is being put forth about the current CnC in Iraq, and how he wrote the book on CI. Howeverm the other side has read the two more important books: A little red book by some Chinese guy who new a thing or two about guerilla warfare; and a strange British Bloke who organized the Saudi's into a semi-effective army. On purpose. You can read both online.
Oh yeah, Lest you think I am just Anti-American, you should understand that the only effective counter-insurgents on record were two American generals named Sherman and Sheridan.

Posted by: walfishj at April 30, 2007 12:31 PM

It's ok walfishi:

I understand what you're getting at.
Another book you may find interesting:

Unrestricted Warfare,
by Cols. Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui

What many don't realize is how big the actual strategic "battlefield" really is (middle east is only part), and iraq isn't even the "main event".

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=889&CATID=13&GroupID=58&CFID=3577987&CFTOKEN=d4e4c1930a763d3a-4542811A-1372-63AB-A58A5CB379A13618

It also describes the entire battleplan of the enemy. The PCers won't let the military use it, even tried to ban it several times (gee, wonder why).

Posted by: jcom972 at April 30, 2007 9:36 PM